Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

Nude Children

Displaying 1 to 13 of 13 matches.
Clicker
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:51AM
I was watching the news last night and a report was done on a Minnesota couple who had been put into the Children and Family Services system after having been questioned by the police for child pornography. Of course now I can't find anything on their website. Grr.

What happened is this...
A mother walked past her 7 year old daughters bedroom, where the girl was sleeping peacefully. She was nude on top of the covers and was curled up in the fetal position. The mother got her camera and took some pictures, none of which showed any private parts. (They didn't show the pictures on the news but the mother showed them to the reporter and then explained them on camera.) The family then took other pictures on the roll and later dropped the film off at ProEx to get developed.

ProEx has a policy (as I'm sure others do) that they call the police any time something that could be seen as child porn come through their store. So they called the police, who loooked at the photo's and called child & family services. The police questioned the child at school without the parents knowing, then later questioned the father. When they found out that the mother was the one who took the pictures they dropped the issue.

The reason this was on the news was 1)to warn people to be careful about photographying their children nude, and 2)the family is now in the child & family services database. It's a law that any complaints are to be logged and filed for at least four years. This family was outraged about this...

The newscaster tehn went into a bit about what was acceptable and what wasn't. They suggested that people stop photographing their children nude at about the time they begin shool. It was also suggested that parents should think about what would make their children uncomfortable in the years ahead.

Thoughts?
JJRD
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:53AM
iStockphoto is extremely severe in that department... it is indeed a priority to make sure that this very site stays completely clean in that department.
zeiler1
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:11AM
What a horrible topic, no offence intended Clicker. IMO it may have been a little harsh to involve child and family services but at the same time I would not want to see anything like this here or anywhere else for that matter.

Good point about the childs feelings on the subject at a later date. But I think this would really only matter if the image was sold and not so much if the pic went in the family album.

My parents have a picture of me about 12 years old sleeping on the toilet that we laugh at every time it comes out. The whole family has seen it and to say that I wish it had never happened would be a little over the top. I am however glad they did not upload it to a rf site and sell it.

Just my two cents.
Clicker
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:42PM
Oh God! I never, NEVER intended this as a topic about what we should and should not SELL!

Wow! That never crossed my mind. I was more concerned with warning people that ProEx and other places are required to tell police if this sort of thing comes across their desk. It was more of a warning of innocent intentions getting people into big trouble.
zeiler1
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:02PM
no no, that came across clear in your post. No worries here.

I think it is important for people to know that what is on their film is possibly up for public scrutiny if the developer thinks there is cause.

You done good to tell all.
KimsCreativeHub
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:32PM
I agree, good work makes you think what seems innocent to some is not to others.
JJRD
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:54PM

Oh God! I never, NEVER intended this as a topic about what we should and should not SELL!

Wow! That never crossed my mind. I was more concerned with warning people that ProEx and other places are required to tell police if this sort of thing comes across their desk. It was more of a warning of innocent intentions getting people into big trouble.


Indeed understood... but in the main forum, things usually revolve around iStockphoto.

And I will always remember when, as a newbie, I uploaded a picture of a little boy being goofy at the beach, showing muscles in a bathing suit. And what a trauma when I realized that it could have served some psycho.

Hence, total severity.
tanaleeclose
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:40PM

What a horrible topic, no offence intended Clicker. IMO it may have been a little harsh to involve child and family services but at the same time I would not want to see anything like this here or anywhere else for that matter.


First: I'm sorry to be so stupid as to ask, 'zeiler 1', but how does that statement agree with your icon? Isn't this site open to kids?

Second: My father, a professional photographer, took nude photos of my brother and me when we were toddlers. Probably not a problem. When I was maybe 3 or 4, he had me out in the backyard wearing nothing but frilly panties. My long blonde hair was up in a bun. And he had me back to the camera, looking over my shoulder.

After he molested me a couple of times at ages 13 and 14, I wondered if maybe there was a problem after all.

Tana-Lee


zeiler1
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:19PM
well, 1st off, so sorry to hear about your childhood.

My statement is regarding child pornography and when I commented that "I would not like to see anything like this here or anywhere else" it was in direct regards to shooting and uploading children in positions or compositions that could be seen as dirty or nasty. These are kids were talking about here.

Yes this site is open to all who may come including kids, and to say that my icon os somehow relating to child porn is a little outlandish. It's a woman dancing" It is available for use by all and any member in the avatar gallery. I believe on page 27 or something.

InCommunicado
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:20PM
Strange that this topic has come up this weekend. I have a photo of my now-23 yr. old son when he was 2 yrs. old. He is sitting on a bucket in the middle of a bed of caladiums and although nude, is only visible from the waist up. I titled that image "Innocence in the Garden" because of the poignant facial expresion he had (it was really just the look he would get when he really needed a nap). I entered it in the photography contest at the State Fair of Texas about 5 years ago. Although it did not place, they didn't reject it for its subject matter, either.

I would like to scan and upload it here, but have the idea that it would get an auto-reject, after reading what JJRD has said. If someone would be able to take that image and make something pornographic of it, they need to be shot (and not with a camera).

(Edited on 2005-02-13 03:24:49 by InCommunicado)
kopperhead
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:57PM
I recently saw a rerun of an older tv movie (sorry I can't remember the name of it), in which a professional photographer friend of the mother, took photos of the children, ages about 10 and under, in their underwear jumping and playing on the bed. The mother was right there during the impromptu shoot.

When the photographer gave her 25 or so rolls of film to her regular lab, they retained that one roll, called the police, who called childrens services, and wow, what a mess it was. I realize it was a movie and not real life, but it did have a PSA and advisory announcement during the movie, giving it one of those "reality" looks.

I have taken photos of my own children nude, but usually only had maybe one or two on a roll, and this was around 20 years ago, so I guess the labs weren't so instructed to report then.

Being a professional photographer, I shoot a lot of families with young children on the beach. The little girls are sometimes in dresses, and being at the beach, they want to play. There are times I inadvertently get shots of them raising their dresses up to their waist to play in the water. When this has happens, I delete the image, or when I shot film, I destroyed the print and negative. Although totally innocent, I didn't want either the parents or authorities having anything to question.

Last summer, I arrived to shoot one family with a little girl of about 5. Apparently the pair of underwear she wore was brightly colored showed through her lightweight dress. The mother wanted to just remove her underwear and shoot that way. I told her I was sorry, I couldn't proceed that way, even with the mother, father and rest of family present, but I would gladly wait until she drove about a mile to the nearest store and purchased the appropriate underwear! I thought maybe I was being over cautious, but perhaps you can't be.

Also, I won't even shoot minors alone on photoshoots, even if it is their senior location protraits, I require a parent or friend of legal age along.

So what it seems is that families that are merely capturing a moment are the ones that get reported, because the real perverts are surely using digital and home printing!

Edit: The name of the movie is "Snap Decision" (I didn't remember, but did look it up!)

(Edited on 2005-02-13 06:02:43 by kopperhead)
pjjones
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:06PM
(do excuse me while I have a slightly off the subject rant)

I find it interesting how society, government, or whoever stomp down on family snapshots, but don't seem to be interested in other areas of the child's innocence.

Don't get me wrong, I have extremely strong views on child porn, and vulgar adults. But if all this is really to protect the innocence of the child, why aren't we upset when parents allow children to see movies with sex scenes etc. I have been to the movies where I feel awkward and look away from the screen, only to see families with under 10s happily watching the steaming, very adult scene.

No one bats an eye. Why do children need to see that stuff? Personally, I think it's abusive, more so than a snapshot of a kid playing in a sprinkler.

(Edited on 2005-02-13 11:17:23 by pjjones)
MsSponge
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:33AM
Here here (or is that hear hear?!) Pjjones

I have four kids and one of my favourite shots was of my then 2 year old (who was potty training at the time) running up the hall way in red wellington boots, a baseball cap and a bare bum. It was just so cute and I love the picture (and now at the ripe old age of 11 she has a giggle at it too).

I also have a shot of me at about age 3 at Butlins (God help me) totally naked, standing at the door of the chalet having a total temper tantrum. I hated that pic when I was a teenager but now as an adult I can see the humour.

There are sadly lots of weirdos in the world and it makes me so sad and so mad that because of them we "normal" parents have to think twice about how we snap our kids. God, this world is going to hell in a hand basket!

Tani-Lee, I am so sorry for what you went through.

(Edited on 2005-02-14 02:37:40 by MsSponge)
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 13 of 13 matches.
Not a member?Join